Wow: Saxby Chambliss, ranking member on the Senate intel committee, didn’t know Bergdahl had left a note until now

posted at 3:21 pm on June 4, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via Breitbart, this makes two separate accusations today — Ed already blogged the other — involving government attempts to suppress the truth about Bergdahl. Bad enough that they’d ask good soldiers to conspire in it, but withholding it from Congress takes this to another level.

Pay attention at around a minute in, when he says he was taken by surprise by yesterday’s NYT story about the note Bergdahl reportedly left before leaving his post five years ago. (A note which may or may not have hinted at renouncing his citizenship.) Chambliss, who holds a plum intelligence post within Congress, read Bergdahl’s classified file. The note wasn’t in it. In fact, it sounds like the note wasn’t even mentioned in it. Why not? Am I missing something here? Kelly seems to take what he says in stride, but I don’t know how else to read this except as Chambliss accusing someone — the Pentagon, the IC, maybe the White House — of covering up evidence that might, if known, have made it harder to gain congressional acquiescence in a prisoner swap. If he’s not saying that, what is he saying? What would be the “innocent” explanation for overlooking a written confession to desertion from the only American POW in Afghanistan, whose release the president has been trying to secure for years?

Oddly enough, according to Chambliss, there were no accusatory statements from Bergdahl’s squad mates in the file either. Is that because they were pressured to lie to military investigators or because they told the truth and their statements were conveniently left out of the file? And one more question: Did Dianne Feinstein, the chair of the Intel Committee, know about the note Bergdahl left or was the evidence kept from her too? Feinstein’s already irritated at the White House for shutting her out of the Bergdahl negotiation process for the past two years. If they also lied to her about the note, this might become a bipartisan fiasco for O.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Feinstein will say she read about the note in the file and the note will magically become part of the file and the claim will be that Chambliss overlooked it or is lying about it not being there. The media will headline it “Ignorance is Chambliss”.

What would be the “innocent” explanation for overlooking a written confession to desertion from the only American POW in Afghanistan, whose release the president has been trying to secure for years?

Oddly enough, according to Chambliss, there were no accusatory statements from Bergdahl’s squad mates in the file either. Is that because they were pressured to lie to military investigators or because they told the truth and their statements were conveniently left out of the file?

Or was there never a note, these people originally told the truth and are now lying on Fox News because they’re being paid by a PR firm associated with a Fox News contributor?

Oddly enough, according to Chambliss, there were no accusatory statements from Bergdahl’s squad mates in the file either. Is that because they were pressured to lie to military investigators or because they told the truth and their statements were conveniently left out of the file? And one more question: Did Dianne Feinstein, the chair of the Intel Committee, know about the note Bergdahl left or was the evidence kept from her too?

Dear Senator Chambliss:

Files are edited to protect Obama, inquiries are redirected or ridiculed to support his actions.

…there were no accusatory statements from Bergdahl’s squad mates in the file either. Is that because they were pressured to lie to military investigators or because they told the truth and their statements were conveniently left out of the file?

Any more of these hapless admissions from members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and they’ll more appropriately be called “The Senate Unintelligent Committee”. Or, perhaps, “The Senate Obama Propaganda Helper Committee.”

Via Breitbart, this makes two separate accusations today — Ed already blogged the other — involving government attempts to suppress the truth about Bergdahl. Bad enough that they’d ask good soldiers to conspire in it, but withholding it from Congress takes this to another level.

On the Soldier/Lie thread on the left side in Top Picks, I just commented that if you go back to the NYT article, it states,

That account, provided by a former senior military officer briefed on the investigation into the private’s disappearance

It’s clear the note was found, and the platoon members were interviewed about what happened.

What is not there in that file screams loud and clear that the WH has done a cover-up to gain a political narrative to release five terrorists. Terrorists that Obama admitted could attack us again. He used the word “detrimental” which an absolutely asinine substitution for attack and kill.

What would be the “innocent” explanation for overlooking a written confession to desertion from the only American POW in Afghanistan, whose release the president has been trying to secure for years?

Um, er, ah, . . . there is none. This was a total coverup from day one. But why? It’s one thing to have an official explanation for negotiation purposes, but to not have a real, classified record is mind boggling.

…there were no accusatory statements from Bergdahl’s squad mates in the file either. Is that because they were pressured to lie to military investigators or because they told the truth and their statements were conveniently left out of the file?

Yes. And, yes.

Lourdes on June 4, 2014 at 3:34 PM

The military brass wouldn’t be part of any coverup.

I mean, they told the truth about the Pat Tillman episode from the very beginning, didn’t they?

Or was there never a note, these people originally told the truth and are now lying on Fox News because they’re being paid by a PR firm associated with a Fox News contributor?

jim56 on June 4, 2014 at 3:32 PM

Yeah, that’s it. The NYT, which endorsed Obama twice, made up the story about the note in order to ‘get’ Obama while one reporter on Fox, who you misunderstood, is being paid by either Rupert Murdoch or the Koch Brothers to decimate the NYT in order to tell the truth about our President, with his ‘noble intentions’, and this honourable soldier, who spent 5 years as a POW after the Taliban stormed the OP he was on in Afghanistan and took him hostage where they tortured him with antiwar statements made by Medea Benjamin, Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Michael Moore, and Jane Fonda constantly…which very much hurt his feelings since he is sooooo utterly proud of being an American and couldn’t love his country and its role in Afghanistan more if he tried.
Or something.

I can understand why you wouldn’t find any accusatory statements from his fellow soldiers. Why would you go public on this guy when he may never be seen again. Aren’t the live releases of people held by Islamist terrorists in the single digits. if at all? I bet this kid had a better than average chance of becoming the latest Youtube of a beheading anytime these past five years.

Or was there never a note, these people originally told the truth and are now lying on Fox News because they’re being paid by a PR firm associated with a Fox News contributor?

jim56 on June 4, 2014 at 3:32 PM

You’ve been told multiple times now there was a Pentagon investigation back in 2010 that reached a determination of desertion. Has FOX been paying these American soldiers (again, dozens of AMERICAN SOLDIERS that you are besmirching you weasley little pr!ck) for the past 4 years?

I mean, they told the truth about the Pat Tillman episode from the very beginning, didn’t they?

climbnjump on June 4, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Obama’s made it clear that he removes anyone from the military who is suspected of not being all Obama-gung-ho. I do believe that there are conscientious persons in the military but they DO function at the behest, so to speak, of the CIC — thus, bad players get promoted to the top, from the look of things, while the good ones get retirement.

Obama’s going about restructuring the US military to a “personality” and function that suits his ideas of “transforming America” and there’s nothing in his activities ever since he appeared on the US-political scene to disprove that, nor to disprove every single one of his associated players are not doing that very thing along with him.

Former ambassador Susan Rice’s statement about Bergdahl, “he served with honor and distinction,” proves that as effectively as anything can: Obama’s/Left’s goal of “service” and how they define “honor and distinction”: aiding and abetting those who seek the ruin of what this nation is, or was, up until Obama wormed his way into the WH.

It’s erroneous to refer to him, to Susan Rice, to Hillary, Holder, Kerry, the rest of them, as “stupid” because they’re not stupid, they’re malevolent where the USA is concerned.

…Obama’s made it clear that he removes anyone from the military who is suspected of not being all Obama-gung-ho. I do believe that there are conscientious persons in the military but they DO function at the behest, so to speak, of the CIC — thus, bad players get promoted to the top, from the look of things, while the good ones get retirement…

Lourdes on June 4, 2014 at 3:51 PM

I do believe that there are conscientious persons in the military but they DO function at the behest, so to speak, of the CIC

dod investigators chose not to put the soldiers remarks in the report.
simple.
they would have considered it inflammatory and squelched it under a false meme of national security.
been there done that, got the hassle when I refused to play.

And one more question: Did Dianne Feinstein, the chair of the Intel Committee, know about the note Bergdahl left or was the evidence kept from her too? Feinstein’s already irritated at the White House for shutting her out of the Bergdahl negotiation process for the past two years.

Whattheheck ELSE is Feinstein going to say? What other tactic is she going to use than that?

“Didn’t know about it…I’m mad I wasn’t included before the deal was done…irritated at being excluded…irritated with Obama…”

That’s as far as she’ll go. She’ll pose and she’ll make statements of ‘irritation’ but that’s where it’ll stop.

HER JOB, on the other hand, HER RESPONSIBILITY, was and is to this nation and so is/was Chambliss’ and all the others on the Senate Intell Committee. They have no excuse for their pretense today of “didn’t know about it, duh…”

It’d be fresh if one of those members came right out and admitted that they weren’t aware of this Bergdahl ‘deal’ prior to BECAUSE OBAMA SCREWED THEM OVER. But, no, they won’t say that.

As someone who’s written any number of “non-disclosure agreements” in connection with civilian matters, where principles of contract law obtain (merger, purchase and sale negotiations, technology agreements, employment and termination agreements, etc.), I’m at a loss to understand how they’re properly used in the context described by Bergdahl’s platoon mates–as opposed to say, orders with written acknowledgements of receipt. Perhaps someone with more recent military experience (JAG would be nice) can enlighten me.

Jim56: We are all going to put aside our opinions and open our minds so that you can:

Please tell us how Bowe Robert Bergdahl found himself in a situation where he was able to be captured by the Taliban if he didn’t go, at the very least, AWOL.

Keep in mind that these are established facts:

1) There was NO patrol on which Bergdahl could have lagged behind that night, as he asserted.

2) Bergdahl sent home his personal items, including his computer, a week before his disappearance.

3) There was NO attack on the OP where the Taliban could have captured him.

4) Bergdahl’s uniform was left neatly folded with his weapon and other GI items on the base.

5) Villagers in two different villages said at the time (and have done so again) that Bergdahl came into their towns asking for water and for someone who spoke English so that he could find the Taliban.

Or was there never a note, these people originally told the truth and are now lying on Fox News because they’re being paid by a PR firm associated with a Fox News contributor?

jim56 on June 4, 2014 at 3:32 PM

You’ve been told multiple times now there was a Pentagon investigation back in 2010 that reached a determination of desertion. Has FOX been paying these American soldiers (again, dozens of AMERICAN SOLDIERS that you are besmirching you weasley little pr!ck) for the past 4 years?

NotCoach on June 4, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Then let’s see the investigation, NotCoach, and explain why they think they need another investigation.

So glad you think it’s fine for your side to besmirch Bergdahl as a traitor, collaborator and deserter by the way (when, at best, the investigation in 2010 only apparently concluded he deserted or left the base unauthorized) yet goes ballistic when I suggest that these other soldiers may not have been totally truthful.

Jim56: We are all going to put aside our opinions and open our minds so that you can:

Please tell us how Bowe Robert Bergdahl found himself in a situation where he was able to be captured by the Taliban if he didn’t go, at the very least, AWOL.

Keep in mind that these are established facts:

1) There was NO patrol on which Bergdahl could have lagged behind that night, as he asserted.

2) Bergdahl sent home his personal items, including his computer, a week before his disappearance.

3) There was NO attack on the OP where the Taliban could have captured him.

4) Bergdahl’s uniform was left neatly folded with his weapon and other GI items on the base.

5) Villagers in two different villages said at the time (and have done so again) that Bergdahl came into their towns asking for water and for someone who spoke English so that he could find the Taliban.

Resist We Much on June 4, 2014 at 4:03 PM

I think the guy probably did go AWOL at the least, RWM. But let’s not jump to conclusions about whether he was a deserter (which, as I understand it, required him to have intended to permanently leave) or whether he collaborated, etc. without having better facts.

Then let’s see the investigation, NotCoach, and explain why they think they need another investigation.

jim56 on June 4, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Yes, lets. Why wasn’t it included in the intel report? Do you know why, pedophile?

So glad you think it’s fine for your side to besmirch Bergdahl as a traitor, collaborator and deserter by the way (when, at best, the investigation in 2010 only apparently concluded he deserted or left the base unauthorized) yet goes ballistic when I suggest that these other soldiers may not have been totally truthful.

You said they are being paid to lie. But being a paid pedophile yourself I guess you would know all about that. However, they knew he deserted five years ago, and the Pentagon confirmed four years ago. How does that jibe with your assertions, pedophile?

let’s not jump to conclusions about whether he was a deserter (which, as I understand it, required him to have intended to permanently leave) or whether he collaborated, etc. without having better facts.

jim56 on June 4, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Packaged up his uniform, all associated military garb, sought maximum cash-advance, wrote notes/letters denouncing his citizenship and condemning the USA (his employer) and his job (in the military, deployed to Afghanistan)…

what more is needed to establish Bergdahl’s INTENT “to permanently leave”…and as to “collaboration,” he also included in written statement that his loyalties, sympathy, goals for future, were associated with militarily-declared enemy.

Was it in the file and taken out, or not even put in? Time will tell./

Patriot Vet on June 4, 2014 at 3:31 PM

That’s an issue with classified files. People cleared get to look but not make copies or notes usually. The Pentagon can do whatever they want to the file after the fact and no one will be the wiser except them.

I suspect the classified file that Congress got to see was sanitized before and after they were allowed to view it. statements from his ship mates were most likely not there as they would have been listed as hearsay. Not sure how they could not include the note he left though.